SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May?082017 2:39 pm Case Number: Filing Date: May-08-2017 2:34 Filed by: BOWMAN LIU Image: 05855088 COMPLAINT VS. UPLOAD, INC. ET AL 001005855088 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. . SUM-1 00 (sotZ??A%3?5?o?3? atoms) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): INCI, UPLOADPRODUCTIONS TAYLOR FREEMAN, WILL MASON, and DOES 1?25, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ES TA DEMANDANDO- EL DEMANDAN TE): Elizabeth Scott You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS a?er this summons and legal papers are sewed on you to ?le a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can ?nd these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center your county law library. or the courthouse nearest you. if you cannot pay the ?ling fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. if you do not ?le your response on time, you may lose the case by default. and your wages. money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney. you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attomey. you may be eligible for free legal senrices from a nonpro?t legal services program. You can locate these nonpro?t groups at the California Legal Services Web site (waawhelpcalifomiabrg), the California Courts Online Self?Help Center or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dies, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la infonnacidn a continuacion. - Trans 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despu?s de que la entreguen esta citacidn papeles legales para presenter una respuesta par escrito en esta corte hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carla a una llamada teiefonica no lo pmtegen. Su respuesta por escrito liene que ester en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que hays un fom?rulario que usted pueda user para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte mas informacion en at Centro de A yuda de las Cortes de California en la biblioteca de leyes de su condadoc en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si. no puede pagarla cuota de presentacion, pica al secretan'o de la corte que is do un formulan'c do exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta-a tiempo, puede perder el 0350 por incumplimiento la aorta is podr? guitar su sueido, dinero bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros requisites legaies. Es recomandable que llama a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no condos 5 un abogado, puede Ilamar a un servicio de remisicn a abogados. Si no puede pager a un abcgado, as possible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener sendcios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios Iegales sin ?nes de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin ?nes de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, en at Centre de A yuda de ias Cortes de Callfomia, poni?ndose en contacto con la cone 0 el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por fey, la cort?e tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas los costos exentos por impener un gravamen sobre cualqur?er recuperacion de $10, 000 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo a una cancesidn de arbitraje an un case do derecho civil. Tiena que pager el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el case. The name and address of the court is: . urth . 25535 32:) (El nombre direccidn de la corte es): IVIC enter 0 ouse 400 McAllister StSan Francisco, CA 94105 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccr??n at numero de tel?fono del abogado def demandante, 0 del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400, Emeryville, CA 94608, (415) 421?7100 . DATE: . MAY 8 2017 DEPUTY CLERK Clerk, by . Deputy (F9003) (Secret (Ac?unto) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form . (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulan'o Proof of Service of Summons, . - NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. as an individual defendant. BY FAX 2. [j as the person sued under the ?ctitious name of (speci?r): ONE LEGAL LLC 3, on behalf of (speciljr): under: Ci CCP 416.10 (corporation) [3 CCP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (speci?r): 4. by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 of 1 Form Adopted Mandatory U39 Code of Civil Procedure 412.20 465 Judicial Council of Calttomia 8? MMONS - cigr?nfoca. gov SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009] CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL (SBN 166977) NICOLE N. COON (SBN 286283) . DAVID C. LEIMBACH (SBN 265409) SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Attorneys for Plaintiff 388.300? Cagl?m of Caliiomia MAY 8 2017 CLE EEF THE CEURT BY: i ELIZABETH SCOTT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA .COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ELIZABETH SCOTT, Case NO. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: VS. UPLOAD, INC, UPLOADVR, INC., UPLOAD PRODUCTIONS INC., TAYLOR FREEMAN, WILL MASON, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. (1) EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: DISPARATE TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF (CAL. 12940(a)); (2) HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT: SEXUAL HARASSMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE 129400)); (3) FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE 129400)); (4) RETALIATION (CAL GOV. CODE 1294001)); (5) NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, (6) VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA EQUAL PAY ACT (CAL. LAB. CODE 1192.5; CAL. GOV. CODE 12926(d)); (7) FAILURE TO REIMBURSE FOR NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENDITURES (CAL. LAB. CODE 2802); (8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL AND (9) WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, at (11. BY FAX ONE LEGAL LLC .. . . mountain new .Now comes (hereinaftcr ffPlaintiff?) in the above . .. - this Complaint and hereby alleges the following: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, an adult female, is a resident of San Francisco County, California. 2. Defendant Upload, Inc., Defendant UploadVR, Inc. and Defendant Upload Productions, Inc. (collectively ?UploadVR?), is an online startup company focused on the virtual and augmented reality industry. UploadVR is headquartered in San Francisco, California. UploadVR is an entity with more than ?ve employees. UploadVR does business in California, and at all relevant times, was and is an employer as de?ned by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act California Government Code 12926(d). 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Taylor Freeman (hereinafter ?Freeman?) is a resident of California. Freeman was at all relevant times UploadVR?s Co-Founder and Chief Executive Of?cer Freeman oversees UploadVR?s operations. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Freeman is an of?cer, director, and/or managing agent of UploadVR who exercises substantial discretion in decision-making, ultimately determining corporate policy. In his role as Co-Founder and CEO, Defendant Freeman is responsible for developing business partnerships between UploadVR and other companies. He is also responsible for corporate ?nance, including but not limited to meeting with investors to raise money. Freeman is one of two Co-Founders, and substantially controls the day?to?day operations. Freeman is a direct supervisor over the employees in the office, including Plaintiff. He also manages corporate policies and practices. Freeman is also responsible for hiring and terminating employees. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Freeman is a ?supervisor? as de?ned by FEHA, Government Code l2926(t). 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Will Mason (hereinafter ?Mason?) is a resident of California. Mason was at all relevant times UploadVR?s (lo?Founder, President, and Editor-in?Chief. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Mason is an officer, 1 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scot! v. Upload VR, Ina, er al AUdirector, and/or managing agent of UploadVR who exercises substantial discretion in decision- Mason oversess Inhi?. . L. role as the Editor in Chief, Defendant Mason was heavily involved daily with editorial content, including what was posted on social media. Mason is also responsible for corporate ?nance, including but not limited to meeting with investors to raise money. Mason is one of two Co- Founders, and substantially controls the day-to-day operations of UploadVR. Mason is a direct supervisor over the employees in the office, including Plaintiff. He also manages corporate policies and practices. Mason is also responsible for hiring and terminating employees. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Mason is a ?supervisor? as de?ned by FEHA, Government Code 1292-66). 5. Defendants Does 1-25 are sued herein under ?ctitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of these ?ctitiously named Defendants are responsible in some way for the occurrences herein alleged, and Plaintiff?s damages as herein alleged were caused by Defendants. When the true names of Does l~25 are ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein. 6. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges that at all times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants were the agents and employees of their Co-Defendants and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint were acting within the course and of such agency and employment. Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants gave consent to, rati?ed, and authorized the acts alleged herein. Defendants are sued both in their own right and on the basis of respondeat superior. 7. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants are either solely or jointly and severally liable for damages including back pay, job bene?ts, and other economic and noneconomic damages. These damages are owed to Plaintiff under common law and by statute, and include attorneys? fees and costs. 2 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, et a1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8 if fully stated 9. Jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiff resides in California, and Defendants do business and reside in California. 10. Venue is proper as actions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in San Francisco County. (Gov. Code 1296503).) 11. Plainti?" has exhausted her administrative remedies by ?ling a charge of harassment, discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and unequal pay with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleging conduct supporting each of the causes of action alleged herein, Within the timeframe provided by law. The DFEH has issued notice of Plaintiff?s ?right to sue? Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., Taylor Freeman, and Will Mason, which Plaintiff served on Defendants. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 12. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. Plaintiff?s Employment at UploadVR 13. On May 4, 2016, UploadVR hired Plaintiff to work as the Director of Digital and Social Media. Plaintiff was hired to manage, curate, and distribute content for all social platforms. Plaintiffs duties also included creating, monitoring, and reporting on all paid social media campaigns, ads, and activations. 14. Plaintiff worked as the Director of Social Media until her wrongful termination on March 15, 2017. Plaintiff was a salaried employee. When Plaintiff began working at UploadVR, she and Defendants agreed that the company would match the salary she was paid at her previous job when UploadVR raised capital. UploadVR raised capital in August of 2016, but never raised Plaintiffs salary per their agreement. 15. During the entirety of her employment, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a pattern of gender discrimination, sexual discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrong?il termination that was intended to harm Plaintiff. 3 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. Upload VR, Inc., et a] Loop L11 \o_oo\10\ UploadVR?s Sexually?Focused, Hostile Work Environment . 16 The atmosphereaedwork environments?UploadVR was marked by Impamcxual . behavior and focus, creating an unbearable environment for Plaintiff and other female employees. 17. Defendants purposefully and expressly created a ?boy?s club? environment at work, focused on sex and degrading women, including female employees. Defendants Mason and Freeman expressly referred to the company as a ?boy?s club.? Male employees, including Mason and Freeman, discussed sex at the?of?ce on a daily basis. Speci?cally, the male employees of UploadVR, including Mason and Freeman, would discuss their sexual exploits in graphic detail at the workplace in front of Plaintiff and other female employees. For instance, UploadVR employee Greg Gopman?s sex life was a frequent topic of discussion. The other male employees would talk about how he ?refuses to wear a condom? and ?has had sex With over 1000 people.? 18. Male employees, including Mason and Freeman, would even speak sexually about women that worked in the of?ce, right in front of them, including Plaintiff. For example, male employees stated how they were sexually aroused by female employees and how it was hard to concentrate and be productive when all they could think about was having sex with them. In addition, Avi Horowitz, the Expansion Manager of UploadVR, would frequently comment about how attractive one of the female employees was, in Plaintiff?s presence. He would talk about now he ?had a boner? and had to go to the bathroom to ?rub one out? so he could focus, meaning that he was going to the restroom to masturbate. 19. Defendant Freeman would comment about how Plaintiff was not the ideal size he likes in a woman that he is going to have sexual relations with. He also madeit known that he did not ?nd Plaintiff attractive and that she could not be used for marketing purposes because she was ?too big?. Defendant Freeman made the workplace an uncomfortable, hostile environment when he made comments about Plaintiff? 3 body. 7 20. Sexual comments also permeated work emails. Speci?cally, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a hostile workplace when emails surfaced regarding a fundraising trip to Asia. Defendants Freeman and Mason circulated emails to the staff, including Plaintiff, in attempts to 4 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, et a] secure ?Samurai Girls,? submissive, Asian women, for their trip. Additionally, a tOp executive basemeha?andhathssexually transmitteddisease (?fSID?Dtest results emailed? UploadVR . Plaintiff and other female employees were shown these emails by Defendants. 21. The work environment was made further unbearable by Defendants allowing male employees to engage in drug use at the of?ce. Male employees, including Mason and Freeman, would ?micro?dose? and use marijuana in the of?ce. The male employees, including Mason and Freeman, attempted to force female employees, including Plaintiff, to partake in drug use. When Plaintiff and other female employees refused, they were further ostracized by the male employees, including Mason and Freeman. - 22. When the male employees, including Mason and Freeman, would take drugs in the of?ce, they would talk even more openly and explicitly about sex. This further added to the already hostile work environment. 23. Additionally, male employees engaged in explicit sexual conduct in the office in the presence of Plaintiff and other female employees. As an'example, Greg Gopman brought a female companion into the of?ce and she proceeded to straddle him and kiss him while they were in the shared of?ce space in Plaintiffs and other female employees? presence. 24. In the office, Defendants would frequently talk about how much sex they were going to have at each party, and how many girls they were going to have sex with. UploadVR even set up a room to encourage sexual intercourse at the workplace. The room was referred to as the ?kink room? and contained a bed. Male employees used that room to have sexual intercourse, which was disruptive and inappropriate. Often, underwear and condom wrappers would be found in the room. 25. Plaintiff was also subjected to offensive sexual conduct at mandatory work events. In fact, Defendant Mason Openly talked about having sexual relations while at work events in front of Plaintiff. For instance, he would talk about how his girlfriend was going to go to a work event, and how they were going to have a threesome with another woman. 26. As another example, during a conference in Los Angeles, UploadVR rented a house to provide lodging for their employees. Plaintiff was required to attend. Defendants threw a party 5 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, et al at the house, and a male coworker invited prostitutes and strippers. At the same event, Plaintiff bedrsom SO that he Could use . .. . . .. it to engage in sexual intercourse. 27. During another conference, this time in San Jose, Defendants hosted a party, which was rife with sexual impropriety. Plaintiff was again required to attend the event. While Plainti? was sleeping, Defendant Freeman came into her room and forced her out of her room so that he could have sexual relations with a woman he brought to the event. Defendants forced Plaintiff to sleep in a bed in another room with her male co-worker. UploadVR Excluded Women in the Workplace 28. In addition to the sexually hostile work environment, Defendants actively excluded Plaintiff and other women from workplace and professional opportunities. 29. Defendants treated Plaintiff and other women who worked at the company differently than the men who worked there. I 30. Defendant Mason would make it a point to say, ?Hello,? or ?Good Morningthe of?ce, but would purposefully ignore Plaintiff and other female employees. 31. Additionally, Defendants and other male employees separated and excluded themselves from Plaintiff and other women. Defendants Mason and Freeman and the other male employees started sitting in a separate room, away from Plaintiff. Defendants left Plaintiff alone and isolated her from the male employees in the of?ce. When Plaintiff complained and requested to be included, the male employees refused. A 32. Additionally, the male employees, including Mason and Freeman, would often go to lunch together, Where they would frequently discuss important work topics, and would not invite Plaintiff. Plaintiff again complained and would ask if she could join them for lunch to which they would respond negatively or simply ignore her. 33. Male employees would often also not include Plaintiff and other female employees on important emails or in meetings. This isolation and?exclusion meant that Plaintiff did not know what was going on in the of?ce and missed out on opportunities. .6 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. Upload VR, Inc, et a! sea?? @00qu 34. When Plaintiff was able to attend meetings, her ideas would be disregarded. Female were not..Isspegtsd,,profcssinuallx intactle in the corporate . conversation, they were treated as second rate citizens. UploadVR Forced Women to do Menial, Administrative Tasks 35. UploadVR also treated women, including Plaintiff, differently by having them perform menial, administrative tasks, while not requiring men to perform such tasks. 36. While at UploadVR, Defendants required Plaintiff and the other female employees to do what they believed were ?womanly tasks.? These tasks included cleaning the kitchen, organizing the refrigerator, and tidying up the work space. 37. The female employees were also required to clean up after parties. This included whatever condoms or underwear might be left behind. Female employees were called in on their days off to clean up following parties to which they had not even been invited. - 38. Plaintiff?s position with Defendant did not include any such job requirements. Regardless, she was expected to perform those tasks. 39. Defendants, including Mason and Freeman, would not ask male co-workers to perform these tasks. Instead they emphasized that the women of the of?ce should be like ?mommies? to the men and help them with whatever they needed. UploadVR Paid Women Less than Men and' Did Not Reimburse Them for Necessary Business Expenses 40. Defendants? unequal treatment of female employees, including Plaintiff, extends to their pay and necessary business expenses. . 41. Despite praising Plaintiff?s work, UploadVR and Defendants Freeman and Mason re?lsed to compensate Plaintiff on par with her male counterparts. Even though she was performing at a similar level as her male co-workers, Defendants refused to raise Plaintiff?s salary to the promised rate, commensurate with her male co?workers. 42. Furthermore, UploadVR refused to compensate Plaintiff for her necessary business expenditures. 7 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. Upload VR, Inc, er a1 43. While working at UploadVR, Plaintiff was required to use her personal cell phone ._for_ her wqu. ,posting_.qnsocial the Internet Because eithie. . she used a large amount of data, which she had to pay for out-of?pocket. Plaintiff requested to be reimbursed for these expenses but Defendant refused. Additionally, Plaintiff? 3 personal laptop did not have all of the programs she needed to successfully perform her job, so she requested a work laptop, but Defendant also denied this request 44. In contrast, Plaintiff is informed that her male co-workers were reimbursed for their business expenses. In addition UploadVR provided male employees equipment, including iPhone 7s, new Apple laptops, and expensive cameras and accessories. Plaintiff Complained to Management about the Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, and Unequal Treatment 45. Plaintiff constantly voiced her discomfort with UploadVR?s sexually pervasive environment and discrimination against women. I 46. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Will Mason, Defendant Taylor Freeman, and Expansion Manager Avi Horowitz about the working conditions. 47. Her complaints only came with further retaliation. For example, Plaintiff complained about being isolated in the communal work space, and nothing was done to remedy it. In fact, Defendants responded by further excluding Plaintiff. 48. In January of 2017, Tal Blevins joined the UploadVR team as the new Editor-in- Chief and Head of Media, becoming Plaintiff?s direct supervisor. Plaintiff disclosed to Blevins the harassment that she endured at UploadVR, and that she was being discriminated against because she was a woman. She complained regarding the hostile work environment. Blevins admitted that there were things that he saw that he ?didn?t like.? Plaintiff and Blevins last met and discussed her complaints On March 10, 2017. Defendants Retaliated Against Plaintiff Following Her Complaint to Blevins 49. Immediately after Plaintiff complained to Blevins, Defendants terminated Plaintiff?s employment. Her last day of work was March 15, 2017. 8 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND OR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. Upload VR, Inc, et a! sexiest/recap 50. After her termination, Plaintiff learned that UploadVR employees were slandering her inthe Vll'tual reality commumtymakmg dif?cult FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Employment Discrimination: Disparate Treatment on the Basis of Sex/Gender (Cal. Gov. Code 12940(a)) Against Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., and Does 1?25 51. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 52. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code 12940(a) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc. and Upload Productions, Inc. Section 12940(a) requires Defendants to refrain from discriminating against an 5, CG employee on the basis of her ?sex, gender,? ?gender identity,? or ?gender expression,? among . other things. 53. Throughout her employment with UploadVR, Plaintiff was subjected to continuous discriminatory treatment on the basis of her sex and gender. Plaintiff is informed and believes that similarly situated male employees were not subject to this type of conduct. 54. Defendant UploadVR violated Government Code 12940(a) by discriminating against Plaintiff based on her sex and gender. Speci?cally, Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment by Defendants when, among other things, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to harassment as herein described; Defendants subjected Plaintiff to sexually inappropriate language and conduct at the workplace and at work events; Defendants subjected Plaintiff to inappropriate and offensive sexual materials and situations; Defendants excluded Plaintiff from team activities such as meetings and lunches because of her gender; Defendants isolated Plaintiff from her co-workers due to her gender and unwillingness to participate in workplace conversations obj ectifying women; Defendants paid Plaintiff less than her male counterparts and re?ised to give her a raise when she was entitled one, and failed to reimburse her for necessary business expenses; Defendants forced Plaintiff and other women employees to do menial, administrative tasks; Defendants refused to respond effectively or adequately to Plaintiffs complaints of harassment and discrimination; 9 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scotr v. UploadVR, Inc, et al Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by ?ring her when she complained about the harassment, megadtreatrnent..and?e 2 2. 2 . 55. Defendants? aforementioned conduct constitutes a continuing violation of Plaintiff?s rights from the ?rst act to the last act. 56. Defendants are strictly liable for the conductof their owners, managers, and supervisors. I 57. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? discriminatory acts, Plaintiff suffered and continues to sufferlosses and medical expenses, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort. The precise amount of Plaintiff?s damages will be proven at trial. 58. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Defendants acted with an improper and evil motive, amounting to malice, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff 3 rights. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial and non?managerial employees acting in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. . SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Hostile Work Environment: Sexual Harassment (Cal. Gov. Code 129400)) Against Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., Will Mason, Taylor Freeman, and Does 1-25 59. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 60. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code 129400) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. Section 129400) requires Defendants to refrain from harassing an employee on the basis of her ?sex,? ?gender,? ?gender identity,? or ?gender expression,? among other things. 61. Defendants violated the law, subjecting Plaintiff to sexual harassment amounting to a hostile environment. Throughout her employment at UploadVR, Plaintiff was subjected to a 10 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc., et al 4:.hostile work environment focused on sex and gender that was so severe and pervasive that it .alteredrheconditions. ofPlainti??s createdan abusing. .andhostilewsrking environment. 62. Throughout her employment with Defendants, Plaintiff was subjected to continuous, offensive, and harassing remarks regarding sex and gender. Speci?cally, Plaintiff?s work environment was inundated with explicit,?inappropriate, and offensive sexual materials and situations. Plaintiff was exposed to graphic sexual conduct in the workplace, including women straddling male employees and making out with them in' public areas. She also witnessed individuals entering and exiting the ?kink room? to engage in sexual activity. 63. Defendants Freeman and Mason are personally liable for the sexually harassing hostile work environment. 64. In addition, Defendants UploadVR, Inc. and Upload Productions, Inc. are strictly liable for the conduct of their managerial and other employees because they knew or should have known about the unlaw?ll conduct but did nothing to remedy it. 65. The severity and pervasiveness of the harassment caused Plaintiff to suffer extreme anxiety. 66. The aforementioned harassment was and remained continuous, systematic, and suf?ciently severe and/or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment. Additionally, it created a hostile work environment that Defendants failed to remedy. 67. Plaintiff?s employment and/or terms-of her employment and/or the avoidance of negative consequences in her employment were conditioned upon submission to the abovementioned unwelcome statements and conduct. 68. Defendants Upload, Inc. UploadVR, Inc. and Upload Productions, Inc. knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take corrective action in violation of Government Code 12940. I 69. Defendants? aforementioned conduct constitutes a continuing violation of Plaintiff?s rights from the ?rst act to the last act. 11 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, et a! direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? harassing acts, Plaintiff has suffered sufferedandson?nucs t0, suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort. The precise amount of Plaintiff?s damages will be proven at trial. 71. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Defendants acted with an improper . and evil motive, amounting to malice, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s rights. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial and non-managerial employees acting in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount according to proof. WI-IERBFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Prevent Harassment . (Cal. Gov. Code 129400)) Against Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., and Does 1-25 72. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 73. Defendants? conduct as alleged in this Complaint violates FEHA, California Government Code 12940, which prohibits workplace harassment based on sex. 74. Government Code requires an employer to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring. 75. Defendants knew or should have known about the unwelcome and harassing conduct toward Plaintiff and were remiss in failing to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Defendants are also strictly liable for the conduct of its supervisors. 76. Plaintiff made Defendants aware of the unlawful conduct described in this Complaint. Furthermore, .the unlawful conduct was so pervasive that Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Defendants? conduct. Defendants failed to take immediate and effective steps to conduct a fair, impartial, and comprehensive investigation of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action to stop the harassment. 12 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. Upload VR, Inc., et a] 77. In doing the acts and omissions set forth above, Defendants failed to take immediate Plaintiffiand failedto prevsnt the harassment ?om occurring, thereby violating Government Code 12940(j)(1). 78. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants had an ineffective policy regarding workplace harassment; had no effective procedure for addressing or investigating complaints of harassment; failed to effectively implement any procedure it may have had for investigating complaints of harassment; did not adequately investigate Plaintiff 3 complaints; failed to appropriately train its employees; and contributed to the prevailing hostile work environment. Defendants, by and through its agents, knew or should have known about the harassing conduct toward Plaintiff, and were remiss in failing to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Defendants are also strictly liable for the conduct of its supervisors. 79. Defendants? aforementioned conduct constitutes a continuing violation of Plaintiffs rights from the ?rst act to the last act. 80. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer losses, has incurred medical expenses, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all to Plaintiff?s damage in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 81. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive, amounting to malice, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff?s-rights. Because? the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial and non-managerial employees acting in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. 13 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, et al nwFOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation .. - (Cal. Gov. Code 1294001)) Against Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., and Does 1-25 82. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 83. At all times herein mentioned, California Government Code 12940(h) was in full force and effect and was binding upon Defendants. Section 1294001) requires Defendants to refrain from retaliating against an employee for engaging in protected activity such as complaining about unlawful discrimination and a hostile work environment, among other things. 84. Plainti? engaged in protected activity when she complained to Defendants regarding the discriminatory and harassing conduct as well as the hostile work environment to which she was subjected. After complaining, Defendants invalidly criticized Plaintist workplace performance. Plaintiff was also subjected to adverse action and retaliatory conduct, including, but not limited to, ostracism in the workplace and unlawful termination. 85. Defendants? aforementioned conduct constitutes a continuing violation of Plainti??s rights ?om the ?rst act to the last act. I 86. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? retaliatory acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer losses, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort. The precise amount of Plaintiff damages Will be proven at trial. 87. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Defendants acted with an improper and evil motive, amounting to malice, in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. Because the acts taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial and non-managerial employees acting in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. 14 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scot! v. Upload VR, Inc., et al FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ., (Cal. Common Law Tort) 7 Against Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., and Does 1?25 88. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 89. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the hiring and supervision of its employees. 90. Defendants negligently hired, supervised, and/or retained its employees, including, but not limited to, Defendants Mason and Freeman. Plainti? is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Defendants knew or should have known of Defendants Mason?s and Freeman?s behavior and failed to take the necessary steps to remedy said behavior and conduct. 91. Plaintiff is further informed, believes, and thereon alleges that UploadVR breached its duty of care by failing to properly supervise its employees, including the failure to adequately train or monitor them, which created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff. 92. The harm caused by Defendants was directly related to the unlawful conduct, which Defendant failed to adequately remedy. 93. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer losses, incurred medical expenses, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort, all to Plaintiff?s damage in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this court, the precise amount to be proven at trial. 94. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, and acted with an improper and evil motive, amounting to malice, in a conscious disregard for Plaintiff?s rights. Because the acts taken towards Plaintiff were carried out by managerial and non-managerial employees acting in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. 1 5 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND OR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. Upload VR, Inc, et al SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION . ., a. a a, (Cal. Lab. Code 1197.5; Cal. Gov. Code 12926(d)) Against Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., and Does 1-25 95. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 96. California Labor Code 1197.5 and California Government Code 12926(d) provide that employers in California shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions. 97. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was paid less than her male counterparts, while performing substantially similar work duties. For example, Plaintiff and her male counterparts worked in tandem with respect to contracts regarding UploadVR?s social media. Although sharing the same roles and responsibilities, male employees were paid more by UploadVR. 98. Asia direct and proximate result off the unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of pay equal to that of her male counterparts. - 99. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference in wages between her and her male equals, interest, and an equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code 1197.5. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney?s fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code 1197.5. WHEREFOPE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenses (Cal. Lab. Code 2802) Against Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., and Does 1?25 100. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 101. UploadVR did not reimburse Plaintiff for necessary business expenditures. 102. Labor Code 2802 provides, in relevant part: An employer shall inderrmify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer, even though 16 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. Upload VR, Inc, et al unlawful, unless the employee, at the time of obeying the directions, believed them to be unlawful. For the purposes of this section, the term ?necessary eXpenditures . . fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section. 103. UploadVR required Plaintiff to use her personal cell phone for work related business. This use resulted in high cell phone bills due to the amount of data she used while accessing the Internet. 104. UploadVR also required Plaintiff to use her personal laptOp for work related purposes. This resulted in expenses she otherwise would not have incurred. 105. Plaintiff requests a recovery of the necessary business expenses she lost for the bene?t of Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional In?iction of Emotional Distress (Cal. Common Law Tort) Against All Defendants 106. Defendants? conduct, as described above, constitutes outrageous conduct in that it exceeded all bounds of common decency usually tolerated by a civilized society. 107. Defendants, acting on their own and through agents and employees, engaged in the acts heretofore described deliberately and intentionally in order to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that such conduct was done recklessly causing severe emotional distress. 108. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? discriminatory; harassing, hostile, and retaliatory acts, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer losses, and has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort. The precise amount of Plaintiff?s damages will be proven at trial. 109. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Defendants acted with an improper and evil motive, amounting to malice, in a conscious disregard for Plaintiff 3 rights. Because the 17 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, et a] acts taken towards Plaintiff were carried out by managerial and non~manageria1 employees acting injure, and, damage, Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount according to proof. WHERBFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Against Defendants Upload, Inc., UploadVR, Inc., Upload Productions, Inc., and Does 1-25 110. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 111. It is the public policy of the State of California that an employer shall not harass or discriminate against an employee on the basis of that person?s gender and/or sex. It is also the public policy of the State of California that an employer shall not create a hostile work environment due to overtly sexual conduct and conversations. Finally, it is the public policy of the State of California that an employer shall not retaliate against an employee for complaining about unlawful discrimination. These public policies are ?mdamental, substantial, and well?grounded in state statutes, including, inter alia, California Government Code 12940, 12945. 112. Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment because of her gender and in retaliation for her earlier complaints regarding discrimination and the hostile work environment at UploadVR. 113. In discharging Plaintiff, Defendants violated the fundamental, substantial, and well- established public policies embodied in the above statutes. 114. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses, including lost earnings, job bene?ts, and medical expenses. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort. The precise amount of Plaintiff damages will be proven at trial. 115. Defendants committed the acts herein alleged maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff. Defendants acted with an improper and evil motive, amounting to malice, in conscious disregard of Plaintiff 5 rights. Because the acts . 18 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, et a] 1 taken toward Plaintiff were carried out by managerial and non-managerial employees acting in a 2 andmtentmnalmannerm order is #3113334 damage Plaintiff: . 3 Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof. 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as set forth below. 5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff makes the following demand: 7 a. That process be issued and served as provided by law, requiring Defend-ants to 8 appear and answer or face judgment; ?4 9 b. That Plaintiff have and recover a judgment against Defendants in an amount to be 10 determined at trial as general, special, actual, compensatory, and/or nominal 1 damages; 12 c. That Plaintiff have and recover a judgment against Defendants in an amount equalto 13 the difference in wages between her and her male equals, interest, an equal amount 14 as liquidated damages, and attorney?s fees and costs pursuant to California Labor 15 Code? 1197.5; 16 d. That Plaintiff have and recover a judgment against Defendants in an amount equal to 17 the necessary businesses expenses she incurred while employed with Defendants; 18 e. That Plaintiff have and recover a judgment against Defendants for punitive damages 19 in an amount to be determined at trial suf?cient to punish, penalize, and/or deter 20 Defendants; I 21 f. That Plaintiff have and recover a judgment against Defendants in an amount to be 22 determined at trial for expenses of this litigation, including, but not limited to, 23 reasonable attorneys? fees and costs; 24 g. That Plaintiff recover pre-judgment and post-judgment interestCOMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc., et al Dated: May 8, 2017 h. That Plaintiff receives such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL LLP CAROLYN HUNT COTTRELL NICOLE COON DAVID C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 20 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. UploadVR, Inc, et al mhwiw Dated: May 8, 2017 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 115416159 1161111211135 ajurytnalonall for" which Plaintiff is entitled to a jury. Respectfully submitted, SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP HUNT COTTRELL NICOLE N. COON DAVID c. LEIMBACH Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Elizabeth Scott v. Upload VR, Inc, et al cur?010 count use ONLY 286283) David C. Leimbach (SBN 265409) Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400, CA 94608 TELEPHONE NO.: 415?421?7100 FAX No.1 415-421-7105 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff Elizabeth Scott San? Francisco - STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister St. MAILING ADDRESS: 400 McAllister St. CITY AND cons.- Ran Francisco 941 05 omen WE, [Civic Center Courthouse CASE NAME: Elizabeth Scott V. UploadVR, Inc, et a1. - .. If.? - crer CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Unlimited Limited - 060 Counter i:i Jornder (Amount (Amount JUDGE. demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below'for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) I: Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) :1 Rule 3.740 collections (09) I: regulation (03) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Other collections (09) Construction defect (10) DamagelWrongful Death) Tort insurance coverage (18) Mass tort (40) A5b88105(04) I: Other contract (37) i: Securities litigation (28) Product liability (24) Real Property Environmentalfl?oxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) El Eminent domain/Inverse i:i Insurance coverage claims arising from the [3 Other PIIPDIWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case (Other) Tort Wrongfu' eviction (33) types (41) I: Business tor?unfair business practice (07) I: Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment i:i Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer i:i Enforcement ofjudgmenl (20) E3 Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint I: Fraud (16) El Residential (32) RICO (27) Intellectual property (19) I: Drugs (38) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other tort (35) forfeiture (05) El Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) I: Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) Ci Other judicial review (39) 2. This case Cl is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. [3 Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. i: Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. i: Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. i:i Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): monetary nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief 6. punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): 9 5. This case i: is is not a class action suit. BY A 6. If there are any known related cases, ?le and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form ONE LEGAL LLC Date: 5/8/2017 Carolyn Hunt Cottrell are 7; (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (sm'rurtlsof PARTY 0R ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) . NOTICE Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the first paper ?led in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases ?led under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules Of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to ?le may result in sanctions File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 0 If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy Of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. 1 ?2 age 0 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, titles 2.30, 3.220, 3.400?3.403, 3.740; Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, sid. 310 CM-010 [Rem July 1, 2007]